About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
president, and george w. bush was a guy who thought deeply about imuation reform, poverty and trying to craft a middle class agenda for the gop. george w. bush is a figure that many republicans have been running away from. so tell me, do you think republicans were too quick to abandon george w. bush? >> i'm sorry, what? i was tweeting. i'm sorry. [laughter] um, well, yes and no. i think, obviously, politically republicans distanced themselves from george w. bush because it was politic thing to do. numbers don't lie. he became very unpopular. parties tend not to embrace figures and politicians who become unpopular. my view is that a lot of the distress over bush's domestic agenda from which republicans fled beginning really in 2005 had, it was a, it was an ancillary result of the failure to secure victory in iraq early and to have a favorable reckoning -- >> so iraq sank what might have been a successful domestic policy agenda? >> right. well, what i mean is that i think the entire country stopped listening to president bush on what would be efficacious for the country when it lost fa
by george w. bush. at the beginning of a new congress a majority of the senators can change the rules. here's the letter in part. some have sought to elevate the debate to constitutional dimensions by suggesting that it is institutionally improper for a new senate to alter the senate's rules by skwroet srort because the internal procedures adopted by prior senates have required a two-third majority to allow a vote on a motion to alter the rules. with respect, such a concern confuses the power to change the senate rules during a session with the unquestioned constitutional power of each incoming senate to fix its own rules unencumbered by the decisions of past senates. the standing two-thirds requirement for altering the senate's rules is a sensible effort at preventing changes to the rules in the midst of the game. it cannot, however, prevent the senate at the beginning of a new game from adopting rules deemed necessary to permit the just, efficient and orderly operations of the 113th senate. we agree -- again, this is the letter from charles freed, solicitor general under president; michae
. that is a really good question. i don't know -- the relationship between america and george w. bush was very solid. my mind drifted. your question was the israelis. i am sorry. time for a refill on my coffee. many, many discussions with the germans relative to their position, relative to our position and the israeli issue. public sentiment in germany as a whole is strongly for a reconciliation for the palestinians, yeah overlying all of that is the residue of the holocaust. i think i can say this. i have a private discussion with the foreign minister on this topic and it had to do with iran and the nuclear threat to israel and the position germany was taking relative to that. i was questioning where they might be should there be a real threat or attack on israel. he said you know that that is not what the public would want us to do but given the holocaust we have no choice but to be there in support of israel. we cannot stand by and let another holocaust take place. so those decades of remorse and guilt over the holocaust dictates policy relative to support for israel even though the public now de
. in all fairness, president george w. bush was outspoken in his support for immigration reform from the beginning. so i think we have clear presidential support. we have conversation last night with the president and featured he cheered us on anything with a sense of urgency. let's not let this all fall behind. >> he made it very clear that the major priority would be to move this forward in time is of the essence. well, we are moving forward and time is of the essence. >> [inaudible question] >> those details will involve a lot from these numbers it's the reason why i signed onto this and a very straightforward principle. it says we have to modernize our legal immigration system and we have to have a real enforcement mechanism to make sure that we are not here again in the future and we have to deal a way that is responsible and humane. we need to meet certain benchmarks and have access to the regular opportunity anyone else in the world would have. once you have that, you are three or five years away from becoming a fair process. each store legacy is a nation of immigrants. >> [in
more than george w. bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks or ronald reagan was responsible for the attacks on dhaka marine barracks in beirut which killed over 200 marines and frankly whether was called a terrorist attack or not in the immediate aftermath as far as i am concerned is irrelevant. we just have to make sure if it never happens again savitt in the future of our people are protected. that is what i want to get out of all of this. so we commend you for accepting of the recommendations and welcome your commitment to begin implementing them by the time you leave the department. even before they submit its conclusions the department moved to address certain shortcomings in its proposal. the vast majority for this proposal would come through funds previously appropriated for the lower priority programs. and i hope congress will move without delay to give the department to transfer authority that it needs to start applying these changes. it is important to remember the security isn't a one off endeavor. indy 500 it's a long-term responsibility and investment and in tha
presidents have had to do the hard work. president george h.w. bush made a budget agreement for which he -- may have caused him to lose the election in 1992 because it angered a number of republicans, but it also helped balance the budget and gave us a period of time in the 1990's when that agreement plus a good economy gave us an actual surplus of funding. i sense that there is at the white house a feeling, two things that i would like to disabuse the white house of. the first is that the budget problem isn't a real problem. i can't believe that people at the white house think that. i mean, everybody knows it is. senator mcconnell gave a very good explanation of what was going -- what was going on there, but let me say it this way -- in 2025, according to the congressional budget office, every dollar of taxes we collect will go to pay for medicare, medicaid, social security and interest on the debt, and there is nothing left for national defense, national laboratories, pell grants for education, highways, every other thing, the investments that we need to make in research to grow this c
supported ronald reagan when he sent troops out. i supported george h. w. bush when he sent troops to panama. i supported president clinton when against the will of the congress, he did what was needed to be done in bosnia, closet vow, and so forth. and in this particular instance, i think the president behaviored in that tradition. >> i would argue that the constitution has no exceptions for when you're having a tough time or people disagree with you that you go ahead and do it. >> in the early 1970s affiliate vietnam you were critical of the bombing in cambodia. i think you felt it wasn't authorized by congress. has your opinion changed about the bombing in cambodia? how is cambodia different than libya? >> nor did my opinion change or has it ever altered about the war itself where i don't believe, and i argued that. >> was cambodia different than libya? >> yeah, it was. it was an extension of the war being prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years. that's very different. >> length of time. but similar circumstances bombing campaign unthorszed by congress. the
benefit cuts. gale walenski, the former c.m.s. administrator under george h.w. bush, said in 2011, "if we don't redesign what we're doing, we can't just cut unit reimbursement and somehow think we're getting a better system." now, a lot of my colleagues give great credence to the private sector. in the private sector, one of the leaders in health care is george halvorson who recently stepped down as chairman and c.e.o. of kaiser permanente, one of the biggest and best health care companies in the country. here's what he said -- "there are people right now who want to cut benefits and ration care and have that be the avenue to cost reduction in this country and that's wrong. it's so wrong, it's almost criminal. it's an inept way of thinking about health care." so from republican administrators to private sector leaders, the message is the same -- we have to solve this as a system problem. let me give a couple of examples of how you might want to go about doing this. as one example of the significant savings to be found in our health care system, a "washington post" columnist recently wrote
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)